This news comes in the wake of highly publicised incidents of anti-meat vandalism and protests in the UK and Australia earlier this year.

Whether killing animals for food is inherently wrong is a complicated issue. But even if animal agriculture is not problematic in principle, it is hard to deny that the excessive suffering of animals in many large-scale factory farms around the world constitutes a moral atrocity.

So, animal activists' goal is certainly worthwhile. The question is whether some of their more extreme strategies are justified.

Is all suffering equal?

Many animal activists maintain that all suffering matters equally, regardless of species. This is not an unreasonable position, and it has important implications.

If all suffering matters equally, then severe mistreatment of animals is no less serious than the abuse of human children. And if children were being systematically abused by an industry, vandalisation and intimidation would not strike most of us as beyond the pale.

Still, even supposing that there is a genuine moral equivalence, it doesn't follow that extreme anti-meat tactics are justified.

Paved with good intentions

We must be careful not to conflate an action being understandable and well-intentioned with it being reasonable. For "militant" veganism to be reasonable, it must contribute positively to reducing the suffering of animals.

But there are good reasons for thinking that extreme methods are counterproductive. This includes some non-violent acts, such as vegan protestors storming a Melbourne steakhouse shouting anti-meat slogans in the dining area earlier this year.

One of the challenges facing anti-meat advocates is that consumption of animals is so deeply engrained in our culture.

Of course, the fact that a practice is pervasive in society does not imply that it is morally acceptable. But the less common a moral view is, the more likely its proponents will be dismissed as kooks who don't deserve to be taken seriously. And while vegan and vegetarian diets are growing in popularity, the position that consumption of animal products is a heinous act is still a minority view. This makes it easier for meat eaters to ignore the arguments and to stereotype vegans as self-righteous virtue signallers. When animal activists decide to vandalise, intimidate, and harass, this only exacerbates the problem.

More harm than good

Perhaps the increase in attention to the issue of animal suffering will outweigh the negatives of extreme tactics. But what seems more likely is that these acts will only foster the already prevalent anti-vegan sentiment.

"Best way for non-vegans to think ill of vegans. People are spending money, buying a meal, uniting with family, celebrating their life's joys, on dates. You have successfully ruined these moments for them. They will never want to hear from a vegan again."

A possible rejoinder is that people shouldn't be celebrating through the suffering of innocent creatures. While this may be true, the best strategy for bringing about a seismic shift is to utilise reason and set an example that others will respond to with admiration rather than resentment.

Dr Tyler Paytas is a research fellow in moral philosophy at the Australian Catholic University's Institute for Religion & Critical Inquiry.